So are you for both smaller gov. and personal freedom? Or just smaller gov.???

Governments have to justify their existence.

And part of the problem is, the government investigates itself AND us.

If we had the ability to investigate the government like they have to investigate us, I think we might find that the government is a far bigger threat
to us than we are to each other.

They'd have us believe otherwise because they are in a position to AND they can grab more money and power, that way. They have to 'fix' and control
us. It's too convenient of a system to believe it's not being exploited.

Myself I feel the need for anarchy, or the need for a fair government that creates equality.

Anything less and I demand total anarchy, let us all be as corrupt, not just the rich!

I prefer the "Night Watchman" style, where a government only protects its citizens instead of governing their day to day affairs. Sure we'll get some
corruption, income inequality, and many rich people will utilize their resources in nefarious ways, but also the opposite is true, and there will be
philanthropy, job creation, innovation, and people who through their own doings make a life for themselves. If we limit freedoms through government
reform in order to attack corruption, we'll also be limiting the benefits that such freedoms can lead to. It's like cutting off an arm in order to
avoid carpal tunnel.

The rich aren't corrupt. Corrupt people are corrupt, and that spans the entire economic spectrum.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Why is it that everyone is looking at different forms of government, but no one is looking at less government?

Given the record amounts of money going to parties and politicians, do you see the deep pocket corporations and banks looking for smaller
government?

They want the freebie contracts, legislation favoring them and trade pacts with other nations and all that takes a big government to serve
them.

Every time there is a new government department, that requires more office space, more employees, more databases, more servers, more IT contracts,
more support staff. Naturally, the actual costs will be kept confidential in order to preserve the benefits to the taxpayer.

The nature of sociopaths is their attraction to power over others, our broken pay to play political system invigorates their interests and empowers
their lusts. The least we can do is mandate money for the survival of the less aggressive and more passive members of our society.

Or just go back to Anarchy.

When the elite hoard they detract from our freedom to earn, how would you address this problem?

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
I couldn't find another source for this, even bernies website

The author of the piece admits in the comments it is merely a thought exercise.

Not real news.

Eta: the comment

Louis Proyect May 21, 2016 at 4:00 pm
Ben, you should be aware that this is only a thought experiment. In fact the Green Party is the only left alternative to the Democratic Party today.
But if by some miracle Sanders decided to implement such a strategy, I would strongly advise the Greens to become part of it and constitute its left
wing.

Actually, what the author said about the Green Party is why I didn't believe the story. It just wouldn't make sense to form a new party when he could
support a perfectly valid one that already shares most of his positions.

No problem! It's certainly not an idea without merit or precedent but it wouldn't make much sense to announce something like that at this point when
Bernie is still in contention for the Democratic nomination (bye bye superdelegates).

I've done some research into why third parties don't do well in American politics and I've been meaning to put together a thread about it but the
upshot is basically that our election process from the ground up promotes a two-party system. You want to read up on
Duverger's Law.

I've been wondering for some time if the Left couldn't benefit from a movement akin to the Right's Tea Party to push the Democrats to the Left. The
genius lies in sidestepping the hurdles of starting a third party by organizing to promote a subset of candidates from within the major party with a
common platform. We're well on our way there with Sanders now. The next steps would be to give the movement a name, create a platform and then
organize to promote change from within.

Of course that's all much more difficult to achieve as a true grassroots effort rather than astroturfing with funding/logistical support of
billionaires.

I actually wouldn't mind Bernie that much if he would change a few things. First...he needs to learn math. Some of his ideas and their numbers just
don't work. That or maybe he doesn't see all the far reaching ripples his ideas will cause. Second...he has got to lose this idea that people should
get things in return for doing nothing but existing. What are we...pets? A person must have value and self-value, they must see themselves as
successful and feel their life has meaning. They must experience pride and not have to rely upon others to make it through life.

Take that away from people, and the humanity will go with it. We will become fat leeches that suck on whatever "flavor of the day" is offering it's
nectar. I'd rather be dead.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.